Friday, January 15, 2016

Welfare dependent multiculturalist is jailed for seven years for possessing live ammunition and dealing Class A drugs

Benefits Street star Black Dee has been jailed for seven years for keeping live ammunition in her home - where she ran an 'open-all-hours' drug business.

Samora Roberts, 34, was found in possession of over £5,000 of Class A drugs as well as bullets which she hid in a pink trainer under a washing basket.

She admitted seven counts of possessing cannabis with intent to supply and was found guilty of possessing crack cocaine and heroin.

Roberts was also found guilty of two counts of possessing 11 .38 Smith and Wesson cartridges without a firearms certificate.

Judge Philip Parker QC jailed Roberts for seven years at Birmingham Crown Court where he accused her of running an open-all-hours' drug business from her home on James Turner Street, which was better known as the location of Channel Four's Benefits Street.

Roberts and Omari George, 22, were found with seven packages of crack cocaine totalling over 194g - with a street value of over £5,000 - in a Ford Focus outside Roberts's home on the now notorious James Turner Street in the Winson Green area of Birmingham.

George, along with Tina Thomas, 48, both admitted possessing cannabis with intent to supply.

The court heard how Roberts was filmed by undercover officers carrying out drug deals in her home in the Winson Green area of Birmingham, and £5,250-worth of crack cocaine was found in a Ford Focus outside the property.

'Miss Roberts is now 33 and has come before the courts before, in particular in relation to drug matters.

'In October 2001 in Jamaica, she was dealt with for attempting to export and supply cannabis, for which she served a relatively short custodial sentence.'

Woman raised money for a homeless couple to stay in a 'nice, warm' hotel for Christmas - only for them to trash the room and cause £1,000 worth of damage

Jesus said: "The poor ye always have with you". Below is an example of why. The poor are often poor because they behave badly

A woman who raised money so that a homeless couple could have a 'nice, warm Christmas' in a hotel was left devastated after they trashed the room and caused £1,000 worth of damage.

Louise Elliott, 32, and her friend Becky Mcsorley launched a Facebook appeal to pay for Lewis Holley, his girlfriend Stacey and their dog Bonnie to stay at the Ibis Hotel in Crawley, West Sussex over the festive season.

Twenty-five kind-hearted strangers responded and in just a few days the friends had raised £640 to cover the cost of the accommodation for 10 nights, from December 24 until January 2.

It later emerged the couple had also tried to cut the stay short after just one night, asking staff if they could check out on Christmas Day and receive £576 in cash instead of the remaining nine nights.

After learning of the damage, Miss Elliott, who has five sons, took to Facebook to 'apologise to anyone that donated to help these people', adding 'to say I am disappointed is an understatement'.

Miss Elliott, from Reigate, Surrey, said she and Miss Mcsorley decided to raise money for Mr Holley, known as Piper, after organising a collection of clothes to donate to homeless people in London.

Friends and neighbours suggested raising money for a cause closer to home, and a number suggested helping 'Piper', a well-known figure in Crawley, because he was 'so nice'.

Miss Elliott said that when she first approached the couple they were overwhelmed by the offer, saying they were 'so grateful' and that it would be an 'amazing' opportunity.

She posted an appeal on Facebook in the week before Christmas and within five days had raised £640.

One woman donated £120 and two of Miss Elliott's children each put £10 of their birthday money towards the fund, determined to give back to others over Christmas.

The money was far more than she had expected and was enough to pay for 10 nights in the hotel.

'When I went to tell them, they were over the moon,' Miss Elliott said. 'Stacey was crying she was so happy. And we all felt good.'

She dropped the couple off at the hotel where another friend had organised a hamper for Mr Holley, Stacey and Bonnie to enjoy. She even included non-alcoholic wine as the couple said they didn't drink.

Miss Elliott said: 'We felt really good. We thought we had done such a good thing because it was cold and it was rainy and they were sleeping in a tent.'

She started to think something was wrong when the couple text her while she was on her way to collect them from the hotel on January 2.

They said they had made their own way back into town but they were once again sleeping rough as 'someone had stolen their tent'. Wary they might want more money, Miss Elliott stayed away.

It wasn't until January 5, when Miss Elliott was on holiday with her children in Disneyland Paris, that the hotel contacted her to tell her the couple had caused some £1,000 in damages.

The window was badly cracked and has to be replaced, someone had tried to rip the TV off the wall and the carpet was so badly damaged it needs to be replaced.

The mattress was also 'left in a state' and the couple had taken the duvet. It took two members of staff two hours to clear all the rubbish out of the room.

Miss Elliott said: 'The hotel phoned and said "we just want you to know what happened. We are not chasing damages" and my heart just sank. 'I thought, "oh my God. What have they done? How could they do that?" It is just unreal.'

Neither of the mobile numbers Miss Elliott had for the couple worked but she encouraged the hotel to pursue the matter with the police. 'I just felt so angry and so bad for the hotel staff,' she added.

Miss Elliott said that the experience has taught her 'you can't take anyone's word' and that 'she won't do anything like this again'.

Adding it was worse because it was 'other people's money at such an important time of year'. She said: 'We feel like fools. It was the time of year for goodwill and generosity. 'So many kind people went out their way to try and do something nice at Christmas but it has turned into a nightmare. I am so sorry for the people who gave money.'

Hotel manager Sam White confirmed that the damage would cost around £1,000 to fix, adding he had 'never seen a room that bad in my many years of hotel management'.

General Warns: Military Will Face 'Great Pressure' to Lower Standards for Women in Combat to Please ‘Agenda-Driven’ in D.C.

Marine Gen. John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, said at a Pentagon press briefing on Friday that he believes that future generals will face “great pressure” to lower the standards for women in combat in order to get more women into combat roles.

“My greatest fear---and we see this happen a lot over the 45 years I've been in the Armed Forces--is right now they're saying we are not going to change any standards,” said Kelly. “There will be great pressure, whether it's 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we've let women into these other roles, why aren't they staying in those other roles?

“Why aren't they advancing as infantry people—persons--I guess? Why aren't they becoming, you know, more senior?” he said. “And the answer is--I think will be--if we don't change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers, any real numbers, come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the Seals, but that's their business.”

“So,” said Kelly, “I think it will be the pressure for not probably the generals that are here now, but for the generals to come, and admirals, to lower standards because that's the only way it'll work in the way that I hear some people, particularly, the agenda-driven people here in Washington--or in the land--the way they want it to work.

Here is the complete transcript of the question a reporter asked Kelly and Kelly’s answer:

Question: I have a question. I have a question. Women in combat. Of course, the Marines were against opening all ground combat jobs to women. They were overruled by the defense secretary. The Marine report found that mixed-gender units were less lethal, slower, more prone to injuries than all-male units.

Talk about the way ahead on this. How can they put this into effect, what concerns you in the way ahead with this?

Gen. Kelly: I would just offer that I believe, given the mission in of the United States Armed Forces to fight the nation's wars, I believe that every decision we make, whether it's a personnel decision, Tom, or an acquisition, a new airplane, a new whatever widget, I think every decision has to be looked at only one filter, and that is, does it make us more lethal on the battlefield?

Will it end up -- will it result in less casualties on our side? Will it end up in less casualties on the other side, because they're human beings, too. Some of them very much deserve to be killed but others don't, and so that's the filter.

So if you look at anything we are contemplating doing, does it make us more lethal? If the answer to that is do it -- is yes, then do it. If the answer to that is no, clearly don't do it. If the answer to that is, it shouldn't hurt, I would suggest that we shouldn't do it, because it might hurt.

So that's in my opinion. The way I think you do this is, since we're all ordered to do it, is you simply do it. My greatest fear -- and we see this happen a lot over the 45 years I've been in the Armed Forces is, right now they're saying we are not going to change any standards. There will be great pressure, whether it's 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we've let women into these other roles, why aren't they staying in those other roles?

Why aren't they advancing as infantry people -- persons, I guess? Why aren't they becoming, you know, more senior and the answer is, I think will be, if we don't change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers -- any real numbers come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the Seals, but that's their business.

So we have very small numbers anyways. And then, the only science I know on this was not the Marine study, it was the study that the Marine Corps contracted the University of Pittsburgh, I think. The other aspect is, because of the nature of infantry combat, infantry training, and all of rest, there's a higher percentage of young women in the scientific study that get hurt, and some of them get hurt forever.

So I think it will be the pressure for not probably the generals that are here now, but for the generals to come, and admirals, to lower standards because that's the only way it'll work in the way that I hear some people, particularly, the agenda-driven people here in Washington -- or in the land, the way they want it to work

Rise of the female sex pest: Think it’s only men who harass colleagues with wandering hands and crude taunts? Not any more

Arriving late to a drinks party, I looked across the bar and spotted a former colleague, who beckoned me over. She was perched at a high table, one arm languorously coiled around the neck of the very young man by her side.

Although well-preserved, in an expensive, highly maintained kind of way, I knew this woman would be seeing 50 before too long. I also knew she’d been happily married for more than 20 years, and has children not much younger than the man she was drooling over, as if he was a rare steak on a platter.

‘Angela, come and meet Ryan,’ she said. ‘He’s just joined my firm. Isn’t he simply delicious?’

Ryan looked terrified. Ensnared by an older woman - his professional superior, no less - he was clearly clueless as to how to deal with the situation. No wonder the minute his boss loosened her grip to talk to me, he shot off like a rat up a drainpipe, but not before enduring a humiliating slap on the bottom as he made his retreat.

I caught his eye as he ran, and recognised something I thought I’d never see this side of the Seventies. Though he was trying to laugh it off, I saw the desperation of a subordinate being sexually harassed.

Whereas, in the past, it would have been a female office junior, hiding in the toilets at the office party from a predatory male boss, now the roles were reversed.

I’d like to say this cringe-inducing display was an anomaly - the drunken slip-up of a middle-aged woman who’d wake up burning with shame in the morning - but that wasn’t the case. My ex-colleague saw nothing wrong in her behaviour. ‘It’s just a bit of fun, darling,’ she scoffed when I challenged her.

If anything, she saw it as entirely justified, a retrospective ‘fingers up’ at all the sexism she’d to endure from middle-aged men on her own climb to the top.

There are many like her. Unashamed and brazen, the female groper operates with impunity, unlike her male counterpart who fears a summons to a tribunal should he linger too long when greeting a female subordinate.

Caught in uncharted, dangerous territory, young male victims are left confused and vulnerable. Should they complain and risk a ribbing from male colleagues while incurring the vengeful wrath of their female boss? Or just ‘man up’ and put up with it? It all feels so sadly familiar.

No wonder cases of men complaining about sexual harassment in the workplace are increasing: a third of men reported some sort of inappropriate attention in the workplace during a recent survey.

I couldn’t help thinking of the case of Neil Fox, the DJ cleared of historic sexual assault charges.

Interviewed afterwards, Fox said of one accuser, a former colleague: ‘There were times when I would easily wander by and slap her bum, touch her on the way past. If I thought anyone was uncomfortable with that, I wouldn’t do it. She joined in high-spirited banter, funny chats - none of this would in any way have offended her.’

Oh really? I suspect the woman ‘wasn’t offended’ in the same way the poor soul I could now see, clearly hiding behind a pillar, ‘wasn’t offended’. And other young men like him, all over the country.

One friend, an ambitious financial strategist at a large blue-chip company, told me he’d avoided the firm’s Christmas party because of the way some female colleagues behave towards him.

Already the recipient of relentless female office commentary about his gym-honed body, he told me he simply wasn’t prepared to endure the harassment masquerading as ‘fun’ that inevitably awaited him. It was so much easier, he said, to simply stay at home.

So why should there be one rule for women and one for men? Last year, 23-year-old digital marketing co-ordinator Poppy Smart sparked a storm by reporting wolf-whistling builders in Worcester to the police.

It seems utterly unjust that women baulk at being wolf-whistled at, yet Coca-Cola built an entire advertising campaign on a beefy, shirtless window cleaner who titillates the office typing pool by drinking a can of Diet Coke outside their window. Perhaps the female groper - sexually confident, financially independent and emancipated by equality of opportunity - feels a sense of entitlement. She lets her hands wander and laces her patter with double entendres because she feels it is an unabashed right.

The female groper also believes, perhaps, that men can take it. Yet many can’t. Militant feminism may have succeeded in emasculating men on so many levels.

Yet it continues to turn its back on the thought of men also being the victim. Groups such as Everyday Sexism clamour loudly - and rightly - about harassment, but remain silent when it comes to male victims.

According to Danielle Ayres, an employment lawyer with Gorvins Solicitors, sexual harassment clearly applies to men and women, since it is a form of discrimination under the Equality Act.

Yet through the course of her work, Danielle points out that women are much more likely to raise complaints than men.

‘Perhaps it does happen more frequently to women. But I doubt the disparity in the number of complaints is purely due to men being the main perpetrators.

‘Nor do I think it’s because women are more sensitive or more easily offended either. ‘The women brave enough to complain feel they have a genuine grievance. Rather it’s more likely that more women complain because men are more reluctant to say anything.

‘They may feel they’ll lose face if they complain. Or that they won’t be taken seriously.’

Maybe, then, the female groper is able to flourish because of the cliched vicious circle. She does it because she can. And because she can, she does it.

It’s a knock-on effect that breeds an atmosphere of acceptance, all too familiar in the recent Yewtree investigations, where quite repulsive, predatory behaviour of celebrities such as Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris was seen as normal - and often copied. On this last point, I hold up my own, occasionally wandering hands, and admit how easy it is to fall into tactile behaviour or gentle sexual banter with men.

Take the time a few weeks ago when I bumped into a former colleague who had lost more than a stone since I’d last seen him. We’ve always had a gently humorous working relationship.

So I found myself commenting how he was ‘quite the hottie’ these days. I even asked him to give me a twirl (he demurred) before patting his arm and asking what had prompted him to venture into ‘centrefold territory’.

He took my remarks in good spirit. Perhaps he loved the attention, as many men may do. But what if he was, as Danielle Ayres suggests, putting on a front?

And there’s more. Last month, after completing a project with a group of colleagues, we began discussing a celebration dinner.

Steve, a good-looking man in his 30s, said he’d be unable to make the proposed date. ‘Oh no,’ cried one of the women, ‘what will we have for hors d’oeuvre?’

I cringed inside, but laughed just as loudly as everyone else.

Driving home, I replayed the scene. What if the ‘hors d’oeuvre’ comment had been made to me, by a group of men, as a young, ambitious reporter? What if it happens to my daughter, in future years, joining colleagues for a bonding, post-work glass of wine? I could feel the indignation rising up in me like a flush.

Conversely, I remember interviewing a fairly high-profile businessman who admitted that, at one firm where he’d worked, a female colleague regularly directed lewd remarks towards him and would often pinch his bottom in the corridor.

He told her to stop, but she didn’t. His reprieve came only when she left the company - with a glowing reference and unblemished character. Why didn’t he make an official complaint? He felt he couldn’t do so because he couldn’t bear to think how ‘making a fuss’ would go down at the partners’ meeting.

The female groper is not taken as seriously as the male one. So she continues apace, dispensing unwelcome caresses and inappropriate conversation because she is a woman, and because she can.

As for myself, after watching the unedifying spectacle of poor old Ryan, I have every intention of keeping my hands and my wit to myself in future.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

1 comment:

Anonymous
said...

Re. Rise of the female sex pest.

Here are some ways in which males are sexually harassed and intimidated in the work place.

1. When a married man with a wedding ring, who is trying to be faithful to his wife, in a female dominated workplace is afflicted by female flirting, innuendo, touching, caressing, flashing, propositions,... In some workplaces the "attention" can be relentless. It can cause much internal struggle for the married male. Wedding rings are meant as a signal to others that the wearer is committed and so the ring should stop such affronts. Yet personally, I have found that in some workplaces removing the wedding ring prevented the problem. Some women can be predatory towards happily married men.

2. When women wear flesh revealing clothing and use sexually suggestive body language, so that from the neck down she says "look-at-me", but has a "What-are-you-looking-at-lowlife?" expression on their face. Feminists like to do this one, particularly female psychs. The "you lowlife" expression is usually delivered to men she considers below her in looks and power but not towards those she considers above her. She frequently behaves friendly towards someone she perceives as a low level man but often just to entice him to make a wrong move so she can label him a sleaze, sexual harasser, or such. She is very much aware of her sexual power but often denies that women have any and claims they are victims.

3. Harassment by male homosexuals who touch, stroke, paw, invade personal space, flick their tongue out, make endless sexual innuendos, lewd and disgusting remarks, often to or about a lone heterosexual male while in a meeting full of women, and the women for some reason think its comedy and laugh inanely at the homos disgusting talk and behaviour. If a straight man said the same things it would be sexual harassment and he would be sacked. If the lone heterosexual male in the meeting does not laugh or smile too then he is accused of being homophobic and "teased" more by the homo. I find homo humour unpleasant and usually remain straight faced and disinterested so I have often been accused of being homophobic. I am comfortably with that.

4. A peculiar phenomenon occasionally occurs in some female feminist dominated workplaces whereby a male who is thought of generally as below standard by the females, like a hospital cleaner or a man who is not hansom and is socially awkward or out of beat, makes the mistake of asking some women out with him. As he is below standard the women soon start gossiping about him as being a sleaze and soon a petition of complaint is circulating about him. And yet many of those same women continue flirting with and propositioning the other man with the wedding ring.

Background

The most beautiful woman in the world? I think she was. Yes: It's Agnetha Fältskog

A beautiful baby is king -- with blue eyes, blond hair and white skin. How incorrect can you get?

Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair

Enough said

A face of Leftist hate: Cory Booker, (D-NJ)

There really is an actress named Donna Air. She seems a pleasant enough woman, though

What feminism has wrought:

There's actually some wisdom there. The dreamy lady says she is holding out for someone who meets her standards. The other lady reasonably replies "There's nobody there". Standards can be unrealistically high and feminists have laboured mightily to make them so

Some bright spark occasionally decides that Leftism is feminine and conservatism is masculine. That totally misses the point. If true, how come the vote in American presidential elections usually shows something close to a 50/50 split between men and women? And in the 2016 Presidential election, Trump won 53 percent of white women, despite allegations focused on his past treatment of some women.

Political correctness is Fascism pretending to be manners

Political Correctness is as big a threat to free speech as Communism and Fascism. All 3 were/are socialist.

The problem with minorities is not race but culture. For instance, many American black males fit in well with the majority culture. They go to college, work legally for their living, marry and support the mother of their children, go to church, abstain from crime and are considerate towards others. Who could reasonably object to such people? It is people who subscribe to minority cultures -- black, Latino or Muslim -- who can give rise to concern. If antisocial attitudes and/or behaviour become pervasive among a group, however, policies may reasonably devised to deal with that group as a whole

Black lives DON'T matter -- to other blacks. The leading cause of death among young black males is attack by other young black males

Leftist logic: There are allegedly no distinctions between groups of humans, yet we're still supposed to celebrate diversity.

Identity politics is a form of racism

'White Privilege'. .. Oh yes. .. That was abundant in the Irish potato famines. ... And in the Scottish Highland Clearances. ...And in transportations to Australia. ... And in Workhouses. ... 'White privilege' was absolutely RIFE!

Psychological defence mechanisms such as projection play a large part in Leftist thinking and discourse. So their frantic search for evil in the words and deeds of others is easily understandable. The evil is in themselves. Leftist motivations are fundamentally Fascist. They want to "fundamentally transform" the lives of their fellow citizens, which is as authoritarian as you can get. We saw where it led in Russia and China. The "compassion" that Leftists parade is just a cloak for their ghastly real motivations

Occasionally I put up on this blog complaints about the privileged position of homosexuals in today's world. I look forward to the day when the pendulum swings back and homosexuals are treated as equals before the law. To a simple Leftist mind, that makes me "homophobic", even though I have no fear of any kind of homosexuals.

But I thought it might be useful for me to point out a few things. For a start, I am not unwise enough to say that some of my best friends are homosexual. None are, in fact. Though there are two homosexuals in my normal social circle whom I get on well with and whom I think well of.

Of possible relevance: My late sister was a homosexual; I loved Liberace's sense of humour and I thought that Robert Helpmann was marvellous as Don Quixote in the Nureyev ballet of that name.

One may say that the person who gets in trouble with drugs is just as dumb without them

I record on this blog many examples of negligent, inefficient and reprehensible behaviour on the part of British police. After 13 years of Labour party rule they have become highly politicized, with values that reflect the demands made on them by the political Left rather than than what the community expects of them. They have become lazy and cowardly and avoid dealing with real crime wherever possible -- preferring instead to harass normal decent people for minor infractions -- particularly offences against political correctness. They are an excellent example of the destruction that can be brought about by Leftist meddling.

I also record on this blog much social worker evil -- particularly British social worker evil. The evil is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the pattern you would expect from the Marxist-oriented indoctrination they get in social work school -- where the middle class is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous. So social workers are lightning fast to take children away from normal decent parents on the basis of of minor or imaginary infractions while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass

The genetics of crime: I have been pointing out for some time the evidence that there is a substantial genetic element in criminality. Some people are born bad. See here, here, here, here (DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12581) and here, for instance"

Gender is a property of words, not of people. Using it otherwise is just another politically correct distortion -- though not as pernicious as calling racial discrimination "Affirmative action"

Postmodernism is fundamentally frivolous. Postmodernists routinely condemn racism and intolerance as wrong but then say that there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are clearly not being serious. Either they do not really believe in moral nihilism or they believe that racism cannot be condemned!

Postmodernism is in fact just a tantrum. Post-Soviet reality in particular suits Leftists so badly that their response is to deny that reality exists. That they can be so dishonest, however, simply shows how psychopathic they are.

So why do Leftists say "There is no such thing as right and wrong" when backed into a rhetorical corner? They say it because that is the predominant conclusion of analytic philosophers. And, as Keynes said: "Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back”

Juergen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, "Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter."

Consider two "jokes" below:

Q. "Why are Leftists always standing up for blacks and homosexuals?

A. Because for all three groups their only God is their penis"

Pretty offensive, right? So consider this one:

Q. "Why are evangelical Christians like the Taliban?

A. They are both religious fundamentalists"

The latter "joke" is not a joke at all, of course. It is a comparison routinely touted by Leftists. Both "jokes" are greatly offensive and unfair to the parties targeted but one gets a pass without question while the other would bring great wrath on the head of anyone uttering it. Why? Because political correctness is in fact just Leftist bigotry. Bigotry is unfairly favouring one or more groups of people over others -- usually justified as "truth".

One of my more amusing memories is from the time when the Soviet Union still existed and I was teaching sociology in a major Australian university. On one memorable occasion, we had a representative of the Soviet Womens' organization visit us -- a stout and heavily made-up lady of mature years. When she was ushered into our conference room, she was greeted with something like adulation by the local Marxists. In question time after her talk, however, someone asked her how homosexuals were treated in the USSR. She replied: "We don't have any. That was before the revolution". The consternation and confusion that produced among my Leftist colleagues was hilarious to behold and still lives vividly in my memory. The more things change, the more they remain the same, however. In Sept. 2007 President Ahmadinejad told Columbia university that there are no homosexuals in Iran.

It is widely agreed (with mainly Lesbians dissenting) that boys need their fathers. What needs much wider recognition is that girls need their fathers too. The relationship between a "Daddy's girl" and her father is perhaps the most beautiful human relationship there is. It can help give the girl concerned inner strength for the rest of her life.

A modern feminist complains: "We are so far from “having it all” that “we barely even have a slice of the pie, which we probably baked ourselves while sobbing into the pastry at 4am”."

Patriotism does NOT in general go with hostilty towards others. See e.g. here and here and even here ("Ethnocentrism and Xenophobia: A Cross-Cultural Study" by anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan. In Current Anthropology Vol. 42, No. 5, December 2001).

The love of bureaucracy is very Leftist and hence "correct". Who said this? "Account must be taken of every single article, every pound of grain, because what socialism implies above all is keeping account of everything". It was V.I. Lenin

"An objection I hear frequently is: ‘Why should we tolerate intolerance?’ The assumption is that tolerating views that you don’t agree with is like a gift, an act of kindness. It suggests we’re doing people a favour by tolerating their view. My argument is that tolerance is vital to us, to you and I, because it’s actually the presupposition of all our freedoms. You cannot be free in any meaningful sense unless there is a recognition that we are free to act on our beliefs, we’re free to think what we want and express ourselves freely. Unless we have that freedom, all those other freedoms that we have on paper mean nothing" -- SOURCE

RELIGION:

Although it is a popular traditional chant, the "Kol Nidre" should be abandoned by modern Jewish congregations. It was totally understandable where it originated in the Middle Ages but is morally obnoxious in the modern world and vivid "proof" of all sorts of antisemitic stereotypes

What the Bible says about homosexuality:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; It is abomination" -- Lev. 18:22

In his great diatribe against the pagan Romans, the apostle Paul included homosexuality among their sins:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.... Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them" -- Romans 1:26,27,32.

So churches that condone homosexuality are clearly post-Christian

Although I am an atheist, I have great respect for the wisdom of ancient times as collected in the Bible. And its condemnation of homosexuality makes considerable sense to me. In an era when family values are under constant assault, such a return to the basics could be helpful. Nonetheless, I approve of St. Paul's advice in the second chapter of his epistle to the Romans that it is for God to punish them, not us. In secular terms, homosexuality between consenting adults in private should not be penalized but nor should it be promoted or praised. In Christian terms, "Gay pride" is of the Devil

The homosexuals of Gibeah (Judges 19 & 20) set in train a series of events which brought down great wrath and destruction on their tribe. The tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out when it would not disown its homosexuals. Are we seeing a related process in the woes presently being experienced by the amoral Western world? Note that there was one Western country that was not affected by the global financial crisis and subsequently had no debt problems: Australia. In September 2012 the Australian federal parliament considered a bill to implement homosexual marriage. It was rejected by a large majority -- including members from both major political parties

Religion is deeply human. The recent discoveries at Gobekli Tepe suggest that it was religion not farming that gave birth to civilization. Early civilizations were at any rate all very religious. Atheism is mainly a very modern development and is even now very much a minority opinion

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 (KJV)

I think it's not unreasonable to see Islam as the religion of the Devil. Any religion that loves death or leads to parents rejoicing when their children blow themselves up is surely of the Devil -- however you conceive of the Devil. Whether he is a man in a red suit with horns and a tail, a fallen spirit being, or simply the evil side of human nature hardly matters. In all cases Islam is clearly anti-life and only the Devil or his disciples could rejoice in that.

And there surely could be few lower forms of human behaviour than to give abuse and harm in return for help. The compassionate practices of countries with Christian traditions have led many such countries to give a new home to Muslim refugees and seekers after a better life. It's basic humanity that such kindness should attract gratitude and appreciation. But do Muslims appreciate it? They most commonly show contempt for the countries and societies concerned. That's another sign of Satanic influence.

And how's this for demonic thinking?: "Asian father whose daughter drowned in Dubai sea 'stopped lifeguards from saving her because he didn't want her touched and dishonoured by strange men'

Islamic terrorism isn’t a perversion of Islam. It’s the implementation of Islam. It is not a religion of the persecuted, but the persecutors. Its theology is violent supremacism.

And where Muslims tell us that they love death, the great Christian celebration is of the birth of a baby -- the monogenes theos (only begotten god) as John 1:18 describes it in the original Greek -- Christmas!

No wonder so many Muslims are hostile and angry. They have little companionship from women and not even any companionship from dogs -- which are emotionally important in most other cultures. Dogs are "unclean"

On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.

I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!

Germaine Greer is a stupid old Harpy who is notable only for the depth and extent of her hatreds

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following: http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20121106-1520/jonjayray.comuv.com/

NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here